RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 295, 11 July 1868, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before T. A. S. Kynnehsley, Esq, K.M.) Monday, July 7th. 18GS. DHUNKAEDS. James Brady and John Younghusbund, charged with being drunk and disorderly, did not appear, and forfeited their bail. There were no other cases on the poiiee sheet. CIVIL CASES. Abrahams v. Hunter —Mr Campbell for the plaintiff, Mr Tyler for the defence. This was an action to recover £IOO, for damages sustained and money paid, in consequence- of an assault committed by defendant upon the plaintiff. The circumstances of the case will be fresh in the recollection of our readers ; on the charge being first brought, defendant was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labor. Mr Tyler, before the case was gone into, said that it would perhaps save the time of the Court, if he took an objection that would arise sooner or later, and which he apprehended would prove fatal to its being proceeded with. He submitted that by the 79th section of the Justices of the Peace Act, the plaintiff was absolutely barred from further redress, as for the offence committed defendant had already been sentenced to and had undergone imprisonment. The clause was as follows —" If any person, against whom any such information as in the last two sections mention, shall have been preferred by or on behalf of the party aggrieved,shall haveobtainedsuch certificate, or having been convicted, shall have paid the whole amount adjudged to be paid, or shall have suffered the imprisonment, or imprisonment awarded in every such case, he shall be released from all further or other proceedings, civil or criminal, for the same cause."

The Clerk of the Bench proved the conviction of defendant, and the latter proved that he underwent a term of imprisonment for fourteen days for the assault, the subject of this action. The Magistrate thought that the only point Mr Campbell had was to show that the information on the previous occasion had not been laid by or with the consent of the present plaintiff. It was no use going on with the case unless it could be proved that the original proceedings had been taken against the wish of the plaintiff. Mr Campbell was not prepared to show that.

Mr Tyler remarked that defendant had no right to be prosecuted twice. Defendant had already suffered the penalty of the law for his act. He would, therefore, ask that the case be dismissed.

The Magistrate thought it was no use going on. The case was dismissed, with costs.

Mr Campbell protested against costs being allowed. If the merits of the case had been gone into the Bench would have seen it was no case for costs. It had been dismissed on a purely techical objection, and under such circumstances the judges of District Courts, as well as Resident Magistrates, always refused costs. Only the other day Judge Clarke refused costs in a mining case that was dismissed on a technical objection, and in this case the plaintiff had suffered personal and substantial injury, as would have been abundantly shown if the merits had been gone into.

Mr Tyler said the plaintiff was not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the court, for she came there with the full knowledge that she was barred of further remedy against the defendant. He (Mr Tyler) had told Mr Abrahams himself, when the latter came to him and asked him to undertake the case.

Mr Kynnersley,—was not that a privileged communication, Mr Tyler, as he was consulting you professionally. Mr Tyler —No. He merely stopped me in the street, and I received no fee on the occasion.

Mr Kynnersley repeated that he had nothing to do with the merits of the ease, there was nothing in it to make it exceptional, and it was dismissed with costs.

Mr Tyler applied for the defendant's expenses, as ho had to put a wages man on to be able to attend the court.

This was disallowed, only the professional fee of £3 3s. being given.

Tuesday, July 7. (Before T. A. Kynnersley, Esq., R.M.) DBTJNK. Michael M'Lean, for drunkenness was fined in the usual penalty, Julia O'Brien, and James Smith, forfeited their bail. ILLEGAL SALE OF SPIRITS. John Duce, was charged, with having on the 19th inst. sold three glasses of

brandy without being duly licensed. Inspector Eranklyn, conducted the prosecution.

James Peacock said: —I am practising medicine at Addison's Hat; I know the defendant's store, it is situated at Addisons Hat, about a hundred yards from tho Junction. Duce lives there, and I believe it to be his property. I remember Friday the 19th of last month, and on that day I went with two men named Moss and Jones, and had three drinks of brandy there. I had been used to getting liquor there before, and I paid for them ; I put down two half crowns, and I received back two shillings in change, thus, paying a shilling each for the drinks. By the defendant: —Your wife served me with the drinks. You were not there. You have sold me drinks two months ago. I do not know whether you had a license or not at the time. You were not present when these drinks were served.

By the Bench—There is a bar in front of the house, and it has tho appearance of a public-house. Jabez Jones, a butcher, neighbor of the defendant's, corroborated Dr Peacock's evidonce as to brandy being supplied on the 19th of June, but he saw no money paid for it. Dr Peacock might have paid for them, but he did not see him.

A Avitness named Jones, who was called for the prosecution, flatly denied that he was in defendant's house with Dr Peacock at all on the day in question. He was in company with Dr Peacock the day before the latter's arrest, but he was not in defendant's house and did not have any brandy with him there.

Senior Constable Groodall proved that defendant formerly had a license, but it had not been in force for the last month.

In reply to defendant witness said he never saw any parties getting drink since defendant's license expired Defendant said that he had had a license, but business was so bad that he did not renew it when it ran out, and he had since been mining. He had never sold or exposed for sale any goods whatever. The Magistrate said that the case was clearly proved. Dr. Peacock's evidence was corroborated by Jones, as to the liquor being served. The clause of the Act stated that if any one not being duly licensed, shall sell, or offer, or dispose for sale, or permit such liquors to be served, should be liable to the penalty. The excuse that the sale was effected without his knowledge would not avail him at all. The case was remarkably clear. There was. too much of this going on at Addison's Flat in a most barefaced may in the middle of licensed houses. By this, not only was the revenue defrauded, but actual injustice was done 'to those who honestly paid for their licenses. He should inflict a fine of £3O, or three months' imprisonment with hard labor. The fine to be recovered by distress if defendant had any property. (Addressing the defendant), Have you any goods ? Defendant —No. Magistrate—Then you are committed for three months to "Westport gaoL Take him away. The defendant was then removed in custody.

CIVIL CASES. Phillimore v. Stainer.—Mr Tyler for the plaintiff; Mr. W. Pitt for the defence. To recover £6 4s, balance of wages due to plaintiff as master of the ketch Young America. The defence was misconduct in defendant absenting himself when the cargo was discharged. Verdict for the amount claimed.